Wiki 24:The Situation Room/August 2006 Archives
This is the Archives of The Situation Room discussions from August 2006. See also the Archives Directory. Unlike the main Situation Room page and its main archive, this page sorts threads chronologically, as opposed to reverse chronologically. Category bar Hi everybody. All the cool kids were doing it, so I made a graphic to use as the background of the category bar (you know, where it lists the categories at the bottom of the page). I like how it looks, and I think having an image there adds a little professional gloss to the site. --StBacchus 09:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC) : Well, it's not really noticable (at least *I* wouldn't have noticed it), but when you see it it does look cool. I was thinking a couple months ago that it would be cool if we had an image above the Search Bar like Wookieepedia does. Any thoughts on what we could use? It's too bad we can't totally revamp the entire site interface and make it look like the CTU interface with the purple/red parallelograms. That would look flippin' amazing! --Proudhug 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC) : I was scrolling through Michelle's page and noticed it before I read this. When I saw it, I was like, "WHOA! Has that always been there?" I really like it alot and I say we keep it and use it on all the articles. Nice job, as always, StBacchus. -Kapoli 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) :: A CTU interface would be amazing! We could proberbly do it somehow but it'd take a hell of a lot of know-how. --24 Administration 17:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC) :::Got a screenshot? =P You can do any damn thing with CSS. I'm a little surprised Memory Alpha doesn't look like LCARS. :::I deleted the instructional thing, since it's no longer relevant. Proudhug implemented it globally, and it was well-received. Thanks, Kapoli! Glad you all like it. --StBacchus 10:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) I finally got a pretty clear image of the CTU interface. Click it for a larger version. Is it really possible to make the site look like this with the red buttons on the top and bottom? That would kick major asterisk! --Proudhug 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) It looks doable to me, with perhaps some minor tweaking. The major question I have is whether it's possible to move around the permanent page elements, being as this is a Wikia site and not a private MediaWiki installation. I'll give it a try. If someone else out there in Readerland would like to take a crack at it, that would be swell, too. Regarding BauerJ24's ideas above, I won't say it's impossible to do a sidebar that way, but...well...it's impossible. The Wikia people say they've disabled the capability to follow users around the site, so I couldn't make it show where you were even if I were that smart. Some kind of tree layout is doable. However, that's not how the site is arranged, so there's not a lot of utility in that kind of structure. --StBacchus 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Request for adminship I have already been nominated for admin status, but I don't know what the actual process is (if there is one), so I'm making my official request here. There are a number of improvements that I could make as an admin: * Make the tables and sidebars easier to use and edit * Fix the external link graphic, which doesn't work in Firefox * Fix the white boxes on pages such as * Apply any other style/interface fixes as soon as problems come up * Implement any other style/interface concepts people think of Right now, I can make all the fixes I want in my own stylesheet, so everything looks great when I'm logged in. But I'd really rather the site look as good to everyone as it does to me. --StBacchus 11:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ::I have absoloutly no problem with it. I'd have been lost many times if it weren't for you. :D Welcome to the Adminship. ;) --24 Administration 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) :::Wow, man! Thanks very much, I'll get straight to work. =) Is there anything not on the list above that anyone wants me to work on? --StBacchus 12:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I was also wondering if I would be able to become an administrator? I have been working a lot, and I just completed a JavaScript/HTML course, so I could get new tables and charts or at least make them more compatible, like the Firefox problem mentioned above ^^... Also, I checked awhile back and reached 250 edits, I probably have 300 or 350 by now? So think about it, I'm not trying to rush in, but I really would like to be an administrator. BauerJ24 22:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC) :StBacchus was nominated and received support for her bid for adminship before requesting that she finally be made one. I think anyone else interested in being an admin also needs to be nominated and receive support on the nomination page. -Kapoli 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC) :The external link problem wasn't a browser compatability issue, it was a copy/paste issue with the site's default stylesheet (MediaWiki:Monobook.css). But anyway, I'm curious to know why you want to be an administrator. You can already make new tables, charts, templates, or what have you. What is it that you can't do now that you would like to be able to do? --StBacchus 10:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Other Languages? I am not fluent in German, but I am in my fifth year of learning German, and I would like to begin working on the German 24Wikia. However, I would also like to ask others for help. I will set up a page for a chart of languages that 24 has been translated into and about how many pages have been translated. I'll get the page tonight. BauerJ24 22:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC) :My high school German's too rusty to do any translating, but if you want help setting up the site, I'd be happy to help with anything visual. --StBacchus 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) CTU Layout I know that this may be difficult and unprofessional, but what do you think on changing the layout? I would think about making it like a CTU Terminal, with the red bubble things on the top and bottom? The top could be the my talk/preferences/watchlist stuff, then the bottom would be situation room/c.events/bullpen. On the side bar, it would say the tree layout of where you were: * Latest Intel * Counter Terrorist Unit * Special Agent in Charge And on the screen would be the Special Agent page. The side bar would be the links back in case you wanted to go back three levels, but not go all the way to the start page. More CTU looking, but much revamping needed. Opinions? BauerJ24 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC) : Yeah, we started discussing this Wiki 24:The Situation Room#Category bar. I've been trying to secure some clear screenshots of the "purple parallelogram" display. --Proudhug 21:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC) ::I think it'd look great if we could but we'd have to make it great and not do a half assed job. It'd be amazing if we could but I'm pretty sure it'd be hard. When I changed the wiki to have a black background when it was founded that took me ages to work out but I'm properbly one of the worst people here at understanding all this technical mumbo-jumbo. I know StBacchus is much more proficient in it for example. :D --24 Administration 12:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Appearance tables, again I made two little changes to the appearance tables. First is that I made the text size smaller. It should appear at 75% of whatever the default browser size is. Hopefully, that will prevent the tables from bleeding out of the article text box, 'cause damn does that look terrible. However, if the smaller text is a problem for anyone, I can experiment with it. Second is that I added the ability to make a note about an appearance. For instance, Marshall Goren appears as both a living person and a severed head. The head appearance is uncredited. So, instead of marking the head appearance as "yes," mark it as "note." : That will add a * next to the episode. Then you can add the star and the note right after the template, like we've been doing. I also made it so the tables will never float over the sidebar. However, since you have to put in the headers separately anyway, remember that you can move the whole shebang under the sidebar by adding ' ' before the Appearances header. If you forget any of this stuff and want to look it up again, I also added documentation with examples to the template pages: Template:Appearances1, Template:Appearances2, Template:Appearances3, Template:Appearances4, Template:Appearances5. Whew! Happy editing, everyone! --StBacchus 10:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) : Were people having problems with it bleeding out? My screen resolution is 1280x1024 and the episode names are tiny inside this huge box! Is there any sort of comprimise? --Proudhug 12:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) One problem that's come of this is that the 4-5 and 5-6, AM and PM, are not above each other... not a big deal, but it makes the tables look off. :Huh? Do you mean I got the episodes in the wrong order? --StBacchus 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) ::No, but like you know how all the episodes are above each other? Like 1:00 is above 2:00, then 2:00 is above 3:00? Well now, 4:00 is not above 5:00, it is next to 5, and same with 5-6, AM and PM. Let's say it's in a grid. Each section has an hour. In the first section, the 1:00 is above the 2:00. Move over one space, and its 2:00 above 3:00. But 4:00-5:00 is not vertical, it is read exactly as 4:00-5:00. BauerJ24 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) :::I have to say, I have absolutely NO IDEA what BauerJ24 is talking about. I'm looking at the templates and everything looks fine to me. What am I missing? -Kapoli 23:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Do you mean that the episodes are arranged horizontally instead of vertically (in rows instead of columns)? They were always like that. Or if you're talking about how you enter the parameters when you're editing, they can go in any order. --StBacchus 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC) One sidebar to bind them all It's template madness at Casa de Bacchus! You know every table we use on the site? I've made them all into pleasant, easy-to-edit templates. I'm going to work on switching everything over to them over the next week or so. Most important is the sidebar template. It works for all the sidebars we use. Characters, episodes, books, everything. Why templates? I'm glad you asked. * They save space * They are easier to edit * They look nicer on the edit screen than tables * They can all be edited from a single page (to change colors, wording, etc.) * Total consistency Take a looky-loo at the Sandbox for a character and episode example. I'll write better documentation soon, but I'm excited to unroll this as soon as possible. --StBacchus 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 24: The Title Controversy Okay, we really need to hash this out. Currently, we have some article titles that include "24:" at the beginning and some that don't. There's no rhyme or reason to it, it's just whatever the page creator happened to call it, or what someone felt like moving it to. As far as I'm concerned, it should be all or nothing. This half and half is confusing for editors who want to link to these things, and I think most everyone will agree with me that you shouldn't have to look up which is which for each individual case. The inclusion of "24:" seems pretty silly since clearly this is a site about 24 so it's taken for granted that it's "24: The Unofficial Companion", not "Laverne and Shirley: The Unofficial Companion". All we're doing is making more work for ourselves (even if it is only four extra keystrokes). One of the goals of our site is to make our articles easy to edit. If we were to go for "all" as opposed to "nothing", then we'd have to retitle novels as "24: Declassified: Veto Power", etc. This creates a hassle that common sense and wiki convention say is unnecessary. The argument for "24 Stories" was a different issue altogether, of course, as it was claimed to be "24 Stories", not "24: Stories", though evidence indicates that the title of the story is in fact "Stories", not "24 Stories", despite part of it taking place on the 24th story of a building. --Proudhug 03:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :Wiki convention? Really? Wikipedia includes the whole title in its article names. I guess Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia lack common sense, because they both include the "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" parts of titles in their article names. :It's about clarity. Not every single book, comic, game or magazine has the prefix "24". Some of them include the 24 in the title ("24 Inside" and "24 Heaven"). Some include it as part of the title, but not the beginning ("Pure 24"). Some have a different title ("24 Declassified: Trojan Horse" and "A Day in the Life: The Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to 24"). :Also, calling something "The Thing" makes it sound like there's only one when there's often several. We know we want a 24-related unofficial companion, but do we want this one, this one, or maybe this one? When a page is called "The Game", is it referring to this game, that game, the other game, or the DVD board game? Adding the "24:" where it rightfully goes makes it clear at a glance that the article is about a specific product, not a category or general topic. :I do agree that it should be all or nothing. I would be happy to change all the titles that need changing. Let's spare some keystrokes for clarity. It's really not that hard. --StBacchus 10:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC) The official title is "24: The Game", of course. Other sites such as Amazon and Wikipedia use that full title in order to distinguish it from things like "X-Men: The Game" or the movie "The Game". We have no need here. Unless someone on the show mentions the Michael Douglas movie, there's never a need to disambiguate. There may be many 24 games, but only one of them is called "24: The Game". That's the title. Other 24 games have other titles, such as "The Mobile Game" and "DVD Board Game". No one's going to think "The Game" is the page for anything besides the PS2 game. Wikipedia's article on "The Band" takes you to a page about "The Band". Does that confuse people into thinking that there's only one band in the world? Of course not. If they want "The Steve Miller Band" or "The Dave Matthews Band", they have different articles. The article is titled "The Band" because that's the name of the band, pure and simple. "The Game" is the title of the game, as annoyingly lame as it may be. --Proudhug 13:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC) :You didn't address my argument. No other sites do what you're proposing. Your example with The Band is irrelevant. The point is not differentiating between the products relating to 24 and the products relating to other shows. The point is differentiating between the different products relating to 24 and also to other types of articles. :For instance: With your system, an article titled "Conspiracy" could refer to either the episode or the concept (which features prominently in the show). And if I wanted to write an article on the conspiracies on the show, I couldn't call it "Conspiracy" because that name is taken. --StBacchus 06:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Well, I guess you're right. Until the day comes that we come up with an alternate method of differentiating between two articles with similar titles, we have no choice but to add the "24:" prefix. --Proudhug 14:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC) :You showed me! Why use a complete title when you could arbitrarily cut off half of it and then add a disambig tag? In fact, we should do that for every page title. There's really no reason to have a page titled "Jack Bauer" when everyone knows who Jack is. "The Death of Jack Bauer?" My hands are cramping up just thinking about typing that. "Death" will do just fine. If people think it's a page about death, that's their own problem. It's downright silly to title a page "24: Conspiracy" when it could be called "Conspiracy (mobisodes)". I can't wait to start saving keystrokes! --StBacchus 05:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Excellent. So it's settled then? --Proudhug 08:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :Seriously, did you have an answer to any of my arguments? I could put them in a bulleted list if that would help. --StBacchus 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC) That might help. I apologize, but I thought we addressed all of the issues. Any unaddressed arguments you still have, feel free to repost, as I can't seem to find which ones I missed. :( --Proudhug 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :::Woah it seems to me that all my arguments today are based on the universe the article is in lol. Books and products are OOU (with books it's the actual book and the title not the story within) and thus should have their full title. The full title of, say, 24: The Game is 24: The Game. --24 Administration 19:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks, 24A! --Proudhug 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :You changed the Manual of Style? Crap, I thought you were just blowing me off! I apologize for misunderstanding. I'll change all the pages that need changing tomorrow morning. --StBacchus 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Main Villian?!?! I noticed some new succession boxes at the bottom of 5 articles - Victor Drazen, Peter Kingsley, Stephen Saunders, Habib Marwan, and Christopher Henderson. The boxes list these 5 characters as the "Main Villian". I don't know if I missed where that was discussed or decided, but I don't like labelling these characters this way. First of all, I wouldn't consider Henderson the main villian in Season 5.... I'd go with Bierko, Henderson or even Logan. Same with Season 3.... Michael Amador and Saunders each had a portion of the season where they were the main baddie. And Max/Trepkos/Kingsley.... I could argue that they were all main villians. I just think that these boxes are a bad idea and I think we should remove them. -Kapoli 08:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC) : Yes, this is quite silly. I vaguely remember having this conversation a long while back. "Villain" is a subjective term that doesn't even apply to the real world. Not to mention, as you say, deciding who is the main villain isn't even clear in most situations. Henderson considered what he did patriotic, not villainous. Similarly with Marwan. As far as Victor Drazen is concerned, Jack Bauer was the "main villain" of Season 1. --Proudhug 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC) I didn't create or add those boxes and I'm not attached to them. However, somebody took the time to find the villain box template (not easy to do) and use it, so maybe this merits some discussion. Clearly, what is meant by "villain" here is the antagonist - whoever is creating a problem for the protagonist (Jack/CTU) to solve. "Main" means the guy in charge, not the expendable losers dying by the platoon. Using that definition, it's pretty clear who the main villains are and that there can be more than one of them per season. --StBacchus 10:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC) ::: I think it's quite simple. Character pages are In-Universe pages and this "villain box" makes them become OOU since it is not a term which is used in the real world. These boxes also, I assume, only takes the TV show into account as well. Plus the fact that in many of the days, Day 2 especially, it's hard to say who the main villain really is. --24 Administration 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Okay, but the character pages have already got OOU stuff on them. Actually, the only parts of the character pages that are IU are the quotes, the description, and the pictures (the pictures are debatable). Appearances, actor, and trivia/notes are all OOU. If we're allowing that much, why not the villain box? Also, if you're saying that any term not used by the characters is OOU, that means the "Day 1" "Day 2" designations are OOU as well. --StBacchus 11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC) : Yeah, the fact that characters are an IU item isn't any reason to exclude an OOU box to the page. You're right, there are OOU sections on IU articles, that's fine. The reason it doesn't work is simply that "villain" isn't always a clear-cut term with a show like this, especially with seasons two and five. Also, what do you do if a villain traverses seasons? There are just too many vague parameters. --Proudhug 14:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC) I don't think it's hard to see who the antagonists are, but that's fine. I'll get rid of the villain box templates so no one is inspired to use them again. --StBacchus 16:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Way to go 24! Winning 2 of the biggest awards! Congrats to Kiefer and the entire crew and cast. They earned it.--CWY2190 02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC) : Don't forget that they received a total of 12 Emmy Nominations and received 5 of them!!! The five were: Jon Cassar for Director of a Drama, Kiefer for Best Actor, Sean Callery for Music Composition, 24 for Best Drama, and some guy (Sorry whoever this is) for Camera Editing. Great job everyone, you all earned it! --BauerJ24 00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC) AG